Lostock- Wigan electrification

[snowball]

Now how about Victoria - Stalybridge, what's the latest on that?

I think we'll find out when we find out what the plan is for Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds-York/Selby, which I imagine might be before Parliament breaks up in late July.

Meanwhile the original Victoria-Stalybridge scheme has been cut back to the first half mile or so out of Victoria towards Miles Platting, and is in progress.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Of course the big bridge in need of major attention is Wallgate itself with the crack and temporary shoring.

Unlike other schemes, this one has received (relatively) a lot of design development ( and ground investigation) time, there are no major items of switchgear (My memory is that the Lostock end is the NS and it will be fed from the WCML to avoid loading Ordsall / Heyrod). The bridges at Ince will be tricky (headroom) and Wallgate is verging on impossible but otherwise its one of the more straightforward schemes, plus phase 4 wired 5% of it and fixed the legacy signalling issues at Westhoughton for them!

For those not aware the cracked arch at Wallgate is on the Ince side of the bridge, ie under the rather scruffy buildings that face the station. These are owned by Network Rail (at least for the time being!) so it would not surprise me if the solution, should anyone ever be brave enough to grasp this thorn, is to demolish them as part of the works.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

For those not aware the cracked arch at Wallgate is on the Ince side of the bridge, ie under the rather scruffy buildings that face the station. These are owned by Network Rail (at least for the time being!) so it would not surprise me if the solution, should anyone ever be brave enough to grasp this thorn, is to demolish them as part of the works.

Joseph said nearing impossible- anything is possible with enough time and money. But yes a huge and expensive and disruptive job.

 

[furnessvale]

Joseph said nearing impossible- anything is possible with enough time and money. But yes a huge and expensive and disruptive job.

Expensive, yes, but would it be that disruptive to the railway?

Most of the stripping off of buildings etc could be done while the railway was live which would then leave a bare bridge little different from many other electrification bridges.

What the good people of Wigan would make of the disruption on Wallgate could be a different matter.

 

[a_c_skinner]

But yes a huge and expensive and disruptive job.

I thought that was electrification in a nutshell! Those buildings will need to go or be redeveloped sooner or later so in the long term that part of the cost can be (a bit) disregarded. Redevelopment of town centres is in principle a way of making money, not losing it.

 

[CdBrux]

If I have understood well then the issue of the Wallgate bridge and it's buildings does not concern this scheme as the wires will go into Wigan NW where the services will terminate. Onward services through Wallgate to Southport will remain diesel and also via Atherton so spending relatively little time under the wires.

Surely the better solution for any further electrification would be that those issues were solved first and in a separate project.

 

[themiller]

Good news then. Wigan terminators are already running to North Western. Now how about Victoria - Stalybridge, what's the latest on that?

For Manchester - Stalybridge electrification, there's a dedicated discussion on this forum (about page 4 at the moment).

 

[Joseph_Locke]

If I have understood well then the issue of the Wallgate bridge and it's buildings does not concern this scheme as the wires will go into Wigan NW where the services will terminate. Onward services through Wallgate to Southport will remain diesel and also via Atherton so spending relatively little time under the wires.

Surely the better solution for any further electrification would be that those issues were solved first and in a separate project.

I was commenting on the issues; I fully understand that Phase 6 will only go to Wigan North Western.

The issues at Wallgate are:

• The headroom under the road bridge is way below the minimum to even physically get a raised pantograph under
• This can be fixed by either not trying (current plan), lowering the track or raising the bridge
  • Lowering the track will require a steepening of the already steep gradient back up to Wigan Station Junction, and quite likely the lowering of the Wallgate station too
  • Removing Wigan Station Junction would allow the track lowering to be run out better, but there is still the canal bridge to get over and the station to lower, plus getting back up for the Southport/Kirby Junction (sorry the name of which I forget)
    
  • Raising the Wallgate bridge will require demolition of the oversailing buildings, a prolonged closure of Wallgate and a permanent raising of the road level, potentially affecting multiple properties and the entrance to WNW car park

In summary, this would kill any business case for trying to do it!

 

[Elecman]

There is a very large sewer not very deep under the tracks at th3 Southport end of th3cstation so thevtrack lowering is probably a non starter

 

[LDECRexile]

I was commenting on the issues; I fully understand that Phase 6 will only go to Wigan North Western.

The issues at Wallgate are:

• The headroom under the road bridge is way below the minimum to even physically get a raised pantograph under
• This can be fixed by either not trying (current plan), lowering the track or raising the bridge
  • Lowering the track will require a steepening of the already steep gradient back up to Wigan Station Junction, and quite likely the lowering of the Wallgate station too
  • Removing Wigan Station Junction would allow the track lowering to be run out better, but there is still the canal bridge to get over and the station to lower, plus getting back up for the Southport/Kirby Junction (sorry the name of which I forget)
    
  • Raising the Wallgate bridge will require demolition of the oversailing buildings, a prolonged closure of Wallgate and a permanent raising of the road level, potentially affecting multiple properties and the entrance to WNW car park

In summary, this would kill any business case for trying to do it!

This characteristically elegant summary raises three things which, as an interested layman I would like to hear more of:

1. Cost attribution: I fully accept that if this were done for the sake of electrification it would kill it dead, but if demolition and rebuilding needs doing anyway, would it be appropriate to make put those horrific costs "against" electrification? Could this be turned on its head to something like "We've got to rebuild the bridge, with all the pain that entails, why don't we use the opportunity to wire under it while we're at it?"
2. "Electrification costs": it seems to me that three things happen when a section of line is electrified:

1. it is electrified
2. the route is improved (tracks renewed, curves eased, speeds raised and the like)
3. signalling is modernised

is it appropriate to include all of 2 and 3 under electrification, shouldn't some or much of them happen anyway?
3. Intermittent electrification (or intermittent wiring): Raising bridges and lowering tracks costs a fortune, causes a lot of disruption and takes ages. With bi-modes now built and planned need we do so many engineering alterations?

Informed responses welcome.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Presumably the bridge will need "sorting out" (sorry about the engineering jargon) sooner or later anyhow?

 

[Ianno87]

I was commenting on the issues; I fully understand that Phase 6 will only go to Wigan North Western.

The issues at Wallgate are:

• The headroom under the road bridge is way below the minimum to even physically get a raised pantograph under
• This can be fixed by either not trying (current plan), lowering the track or raising the bridge
  • Lowering the track will require a steepening of the already steep gradient back up to Wigan Station Junction, and quite likely the lowering of the Wallgate station too
  • Removing Wigan Station Junction would allow the track lowering to be run out better, but there is still the canal bridge to get over and the station to lower, plus getting back up for the Southport/Kirby Junction (sorry the name of which I forget)
    
  • Raising the Wallgate bridge will require demolition of the oversailing buildings, a prolonged closure of Wallgate and a permanent raising of the road level, potentially affecting multiple properties and the entrance to WNW car park

In summary, this would kill any business case for trying to do it!

Thanks for the analysis - might be a genuine area where bi-modes may be the most economical way forward

(FYI - I think the Southport/Kirkby junction is, imaginatively, called Wallgate Jn)

 

[IanXC]

Thanks for the analysis - might be a genuine area where bi-modes may be the most economical way forward

(FYI - I think the Southport/Kirkby junction is, imaginatively, called Wallgate Jn)

I really don't see why Wallgate-Southport is being discussed here - in the Lostock to Wigan electrification thread.

There would be no point in electrifying to Southport without also electrifying the Atherton line. Without either, in all likelihood both, the difficulty or otherwise of electrifying Wallgate doesn't come into it.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

This characteristically elegant summary raises three things which, as an interested layman I would like to hear more of:
...
Informed responses welcome.

See https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/electrification-engineering-general.165655/

 

[driver_m]

Imagine what the wiring would look like, if Crow Nest Jn was in its original 4 track state!

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I really don't see why Wallgate-Southport is being discussed here - in the Lostock to Wigan electrification thread.

There would be no point in electrifying to Southport without also electrifying the Atherton line. Without either, in all likelihood both, the difficulty or otherwise of electrifying Wallgate doesn't come into it.

The reason for discussing the state of Wallgate bridge is to underline that the decision to make the electrified route serve only North Western station is fully justified as things stand now. When the bridge fault was first discovered the immediate reaction was to suspend both rail and road traffic until a structural engineer could arrive on scene: needless to say this was arranged very promptly. Subsequently usage returned to normal with the bridge suitably shored up. If this arrangement is deemed robust enough for (almost) indefinite continued operation then the issue can remain in the long grass until electrification of the Atherton/Southport/Kirkby(or Skelmersdale!) lines becomes a more pressing issue. As such we are talking merely about hypotheticals.

 

[Phil from Mon]

3. Intermittent electrification (or intermittent wiring): Raising bridges and lowering tracks costs a fortune, causes a lot of disruption and takes ages. With bi-modes now built and planned need we do so many engineering alterations?

Informed responses welcome.

The hopefully soon upcoming South Wales valleys electrification will use 25kV plus batteries so that there is no need for major infrastructure work to wire under low bridges. I’d guess that if this works it could be the solution for Wigan.

 

[twpsaesneg]

This characteristically elegant summary raises three things which, as an interested layman I would like to hear more of:

1. Cost attribution: I fully accept that if this were done for the sake of electrification it would kill it dead, but if demolition and rebuilding needs doing anyway, would it be appropriate to make put those horrific costs "against" electrification? Could this be turned on its head to something like "We've got to rebuild the bridge, with all the pain that entails, why don't we use the opportunity to wire under it while we're at it?"
2. "Electrification costs": it seems to me that three things happen when a section of line is electrified:

1. it is electrified
2. the route is improved (tracks renewed, curves eased, speeds raised and the like)
3. signalling is modernised

is it appropriate to include all of 2 and 3 under electrification, shouldn't some or much of them happen anyway?
3. Intermittent electrification (or intermittent wiring): Raising bridges and lowering tracks costs a fortune, causes a lot of disruption and takes ages. With bi-modes now built and planned need we do so many engineering alterations?

Informed responses welcome.

Often, an impending OLE project is seen as a good way of getting existing assets replaced without it coming out of the renewals budget. For instance, bridges with condition related weight restrictions, signalling not compliant to modern electrical safety standards (Electricity at Work Act), earthworks in poor condition. These are all examples I have come across as suddenly becoming the "projects" problem rather than the maintainers.

There usually follows a big bun-fight regarding who pays, and since the maintainer's budget is usually stretched wafer thin the OLE project often ends up picking up the tab.

Wallgate bridge is very definitely not in scope for Lostock-Wigan as it stands, but an initial look confirmed that it is indeed too low for anything normal from an OLE point of view. Factors also against Wallgate wiring are potential canopy works in the station, and the need to wire to the reversing siding beyond Wigan Wallgate or resignal to allow bi-directional movements in the platforms towards Manchester, as currently any terminators from Manchester have to reverse in the siding. Even if bi-modes are used, there needs to be an option to withdraw on AC if the diesels don't fire up for whatever reason.

Intermittent electrification is an interesting one. I don't think intermittent wiring will fly particularly well, as it adds (a lot) to driver workload, needing the pantograph to be lowered which is a totally manual intervention, unless some balise-based technology is brought in to do it. This entails making sure that the driver isn't occupied with another task (signal approach, station approach, speed board approach etc. etc.) which doesn't leave a lot of time to fit other things in. Earthed sections are a little easier, as all electric stock is fitted with APC (automatic power control) which drops the breakers on approach to neutral sections - presumably this could be used to seamlessly change over to battery as far as rolling stock is concerned. As far as OLE design is concerned I'd guess we'd consider it as an extended Netural Section (examples of this very thing already exist at Newton in Scotland amongst others). However, for neutrals some operators have instructions for drivers to notch off as well, which again is a "workload" thing - I guess a lot of this will get thrashed out in Wales Metro.

 

[a_c_skinner]

if the diesels don't fire up for whatever reason

With pure diesel we generally expect to manage without backup... (Yes I know stuck in depot isn't as bad, but honestly if we cannot make a Diesel engine that starts reliably).

Driver's workload ought to be manageable automatically to a large extent, it should be do-able. Please don't misunderstand me but there is a fine line between foreseeing problems and finding reasons that something cannot even be attempted.

 

[edwin_m]

Intermittent electrification is an interesting one. I don't think intermittent wiring will fly particularly well, as it adds (a lot) to driver workload, needing the pantograph to be lowered which is a totally manual intervention, unless some balise-based technology is brought in to do it.

Isn't there a balise-based system on GW?

With pure diesel we generally expect to manage without backup... (Yes I know stuck in depot isn't as bad, but honestly if we cannot make a Diesel engine that starts reliably).

If I recall correctly it's already bi-directional between the Down platform and the junction to the south, so if a diesel failed to start the train could just reverse by that route.

 

[WatcherZero]

The reason for discussing the state of Wallgate bridge is to underline that the decision to make the electrified route serve only North Western station is fully justified as things stand now. When the bridge fault was first discovered the immediate reaction was to suspend both rail and road traffic until a structural engineer could arrive on scene: needless to say this was arranged very promptly. Subsequently usage returned to normal with the bridge suitably shored up. If this arrangement is deemed robust enough for (almost) indefinite continued operation then the issue can remain in the long grass until electrification of the Atherton/Southport/Kirkby(or Skelmersdale!) lines becomes a more pressing issue. As such we are talking merely about hypotheticals.

I believe there is a time limit for how long they are allowed to defer renewing an asset that's in need of permanent repair, I think its 20 years.

 

[twpsaesneg]

If I recall correctly it's already bi-directional between the Down platform and the junction to the south, so if a diesel failed to start the train could just reverse by that route.

I thought that, but it's a fixed red on the Manchester end apparently.

With pure diesel we generally expect to manage without backup... (Yes I know stuck in depot isn't as bad, but honestly if we cannot make a Diesel engine that starts reliably).

Driver's workload ought to be manageable automatically to a large extent, it should be do-able. Please don't misunderstand me but there is a fine line between foreseeing problems and finding reasons that something cannot even be attempted.

I'm basing this on my experience of quite a lot of frustrating times trying to implement quite "normal" operational practices unfortunatley.

 

[furnessvale]

I believe there is a time limit for how long they are allowed to defer renewing an asset that's in need of permanent repair, I think its 20 years.

How things have changed.

In 1964, when I first joined the railway, there was a bridge at Rose grove where you could walk through the holes in the webs of the girders.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I have not heard anything but assume with Manchester - Preston speeding up now that a start maybe made soon on this line.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

A bump to ask “ any news?”

 

[Chester1]

I might be wrong but the project is suspended with no date for work. After Manchester-Preston the focus will presumably switch to ongoing schemes. Victoria to Miles Platting has not been completed yet, let alone to Stalybridge.

 

[59CosG95]

I might be wrong but the project is suspended with no date for work. After Manchester-Preston the focus will presumably switch to ongoing schemes. Victoria to Miles Platting has not been completed yet, let alone to Stalybridge.

It is worth bearing in mind that no new schemes will be announced until Parliament resumes in September. While the main onus of work on Manc-Preston will be switching to snagging works & electrical testing in the coming months, and the existing schemes (i.e. Manc-Stalybridge) can advance in construction, it would be a pragmatic move for Grayling to win the Northerners' support by filling in the gap via Ince & Atherton.

 

[CdBrux]

Might there be some dependency to how much of the Trans Pennine route upgrade will involve electrification as to where the resources would move to or could this be done quickly first?

 

[Senex]

It is worth bearing in mind that no new schemes will be announced until Parliament resumes in September. While the main onus of work on Manc-Preston will be switching to snagging works & electrical testing in the coming months, and the existing schemes (i.e. Manc-Stalybridge) can advance in construction, it would be a pragmatic move for Grayling to win the Northerners' support by filling in the gap via Ince & Atherton.

Why would a tiny suburban scheme win Northerners' support (rather than just the support of very small numbers in the area served)? It's got to be the big gesture of getting on with Manchester-Leeds, with electrification, to win Northerners' support, and even then I doubt if the North-East cares too much.

 

[59CosG95]

Why would a tiny suburban scheme win Northerners' support (rather than just the support of very small numbers in the area served)? It's got to be the big gesture of getting on with Manchester-Leeds, with electrification, to win Northerners' support, and even then I doubt if the North-East cares too much.

Point taken - that would have a far larger amount of support. My school of thought was that "finishing the job" would tick a few GNRP boxes.